BEFORE THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI
Date of Decision: 27.2.2019
Appeal No.341 of 2017
Vinod Abrol
Flat No.3A, Durganiwas 622 Kharpali
Road, Khar-West, Mumbai – 52.

….. Appellant
Versus
1. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd.
Investor Service Cell
Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Tower,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. R.R. Nabar & Co. Sharebrokers Pvt. Ltd.
Examiner Press Building, 31 Dalal Street,
Fort, Mumbai – 400001.

…… Respondents
Mr. Vinod Abrol, Appellant-in-person.
Mr. Manish Chhangani, Advocate i/b. Khaitan & Co. for the
Respondent no.1.
Mr. Ajay Khundhar, Advocate for the Respondent no.2.

CORAM: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer
Dr. C.K.G. Nair, Member
Per : Justice Tarun Agarwala (Oral)
1.

We have heard the appellant in person. Mr. Manish Chhangani,
Advocate for BSE (Respondent no.1) and Mr. Ajay Khundhar,
Advocate for R.R. Nabar & Co. Sharebrokers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent
no.2).

The appellant is an investor in the capital market and
approached Respondent no.2 who is a broker for supplying certain
2
documents. Since the said documents were not supplied, the appellant
made a complaint to the BSE Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSE’).
Since the complaint was not addressed, the appellant filed Appeal
no.225 of 2017 which was disposed of by an order dated 21st
September, 2017 directing BSE to decide the representation of the
appellant within four weeks. Based on the said direction, BSE by the
impugned order disposed of the representation/complaint.

The
appellant being aggrieved by the order has filed the present appeal
contending that as per circular issued by Securities and Exchange
Board of India and the Bye-laws it was implicit that the complaint of
the appellant should have been forwarded to the Grievance Redressal
Mechanism Committee which in the instant case has not been done
and, therefore, the impugned order is patently erroneous and is liable
to be set aside. It was also submitted that in view of the Bye-laws 156
it was necessary for the stock broker to resolve the issue with the
appellant which again had not been done and, therefore, BSE should
take action under SEBI laws against the broker respondent no.2. It
was further contended that the certified copy of the three documents
sought for has not been given and that BSE in the impugned order has
incorrectly held that these documents have been supplied.
2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length
we find that the background leading to the present complaint stems
from a civil suit which is pending in the City Civil Court Bombay with
regard to 200 shares of Himmatsingka Seide Ltd. We also find that an
award has also been made by an arbitrator regarding refund of 200
shares of the same company which matter has travelled upto the
3
Supreme Court based on which the appellant has now paid money to
the broker. In so far as the grievance of the appellant is concerned that
the broker respondent no.2. should extend cooperation in resolving the
issue which is pending before the City Civil Court of Bombay under
Bye-law 156 of the Bye-laws we are of the opinion that such
cooperation cannot be given in the instant case in as much as a
separate stand has been taken by Respondent no.2 before City Civil
Court and extending any kind of cooperation or assistance under this
Bye-law to the appellant will jeopardize and affect his rights which he
has taken before the City Civil Court. Thus it is not open either to
BSE or to this Tribunal to direct the respondent no.2 to extent
cooperation under by Bye-law 156. The contention of the appellant in
this regard is patently misconceived and is rejected outrightly.
3.

With regard to the request of obtaining a certified copy of the
documents we find that a request was made to Respondent no.2 to
which he did not respond. The BSE while deciding the complaint has
found that these documents were duly received by the complainant
namely, the appellant. This finding is apparently incorrect in as much
as the appellant had asked for a certified copy of the documents which
apparently had not been provided. In para 5.4 of the memorandum of
appeal, the appellant has clearly stated that he had requested for
certified copy of certain documents which has not been denied by
Respondent no.2 in his reply. Thus, we are of the opinion that the
documents sought for by the appellants should be supplied by
respondent no.2. to the appellant.

4
4.

We accordingly dispose of the matter directing the respondent
no.2 to supply the certified copies of the documents as sought by the
appellant vide its letter dated 7th June, 2016 Exhibit G to the
memorandum of appeal within four weeks from today. In view of the
aforesaid parties will bear their own costs.

Sd/Justice Tarun Agarwala
Presiding Officer
Sd/Dr. C. K. G. Nair
Member
27.2.2019
Prepared and compared by
RHN